Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 11 OCTOBER 2018

Delaware Judge Finds Elusive MAC—Does It Change Anything?

Bennett Jones LLP
Bennett Jones LLP
Contributor
Bennett Jones LLP

Bennett Jones LLP

Bennett Jones is one of Canada’s premier business law firms. With deep experience in complex...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bennett Jones LLP

Purchasers of businesses often want an "escape hatch" prior to closing if the target business suffers a "material adverse change" (or a "material adverse effect").

CanadaCorporate/Commercial Law

Purchasers of businesses often want an "escape hatch" prior to closing if the target business suffers a "material adverse change" (or a "material adverse effect"). Historically, based on court decisions primarily out of the U.S. (and Delaware in particular), this right has been viewed as extremely difficult to exercise in practice. As reported by Reuters, last week's decision of a Delaware judge affirms a purchaser's ability to walk if a true "material adverse change" occurs with respect to a target business.

"Material Adverse Change" Condition Validly Exercised

In a significant opinion issued on October 1, 2018 by Vice Chancellor Travis Laster of the Delaware Chancery Court (Akorn, Inc., v. Fresenius Kabi AG Case No. 2018-0300-JTL), it was ruled that a purchaser could walk away from an acquisition due to factors which were found to constitute a "material adverse change" ("MAC"). This decision is of particular importance as it represents the first time a Delaware

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

See more popular content from